Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: The Divine Right Of Traitors, Crooks, & Liars

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,915
    Thanks
    844
    Thanked 379 Times in 339 Posts
    Groans
    50
    Groaned 95 Times in 82 Posts

    Default The Divine Right Of Traitors, Crooks, & Liars

    Should Republicans Impeach Biden and Harris?

    Now that impeachment is just one more card in the political deck, to be played by whichever party controls the House of Representatives, the question naturally arises: what should Republicans do when they retake control of the House, very likely in 2022?

    Lindsay Graham warns that if the Democrats could impeach Donald Trump with the false assertion that he incited violence, a far stronger claim along the same lines can be made against Kamala Harris:


    Breaking911

    SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: "I don't know how Kamala Harris doesn't get impeached if the Republicans take over the House, because she actually bailed out rioters"




    Tweet
    Tom Cotton

    Aug 30, 2020
    Kamala Harris helped violent rioters in Minnesota get out of jail to do more damage.

    Don't believe her when she says she "condemns the violence"—look at her record, not her words.

    Quote Tweet
    Kamala Harris

    Jun 1, 2020
    If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund
    to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.
    Donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund
    Your support will help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.

    Jeff Dunetz argues against retaliatory impeachment, and also says that Harris shouldn’t be impeached for something she did before she was vice-president. That is certainly a plausible position, although interestingly, the Constitution doesn’t say that the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that are the basis for removal from office must have been committed while the subject of the impeachment held his or her current office.

    If we agree with the Democrats that it is proper to impeach a former president, House Republicans could consider impeaching Barack Obama. He plainly violated his oath of office and his duties under Article II of the Constitution (specifically, the “Take Care Clause”) when he essentially suspended enforcement of the country’s immigration laws. In my opinion he should have been impeached at the time, and, if the Democrats’ theory is accepted, it will not be too late to impeach him in 2023.

    More to the point, though, is the fact that Joe Biden has committed the same impeachable offense as Barack Obama. In his first week’s blizzard of executive orders, he, perhaps to an even greater extent than Obama, purported to repeal the immigration laws. I think this was an impeachable offense, not just on the absurd theories argued for by Democrats, but on a sober reading of the impeachment clauses in the Constitution. And of course, by 2023 Biden in all likelihood will have committed many more illegal and unconstitutional acts that could be the basis for impeachment.

    Some respected commentators argue that Republicans should take the high road. Rather than emulating the Democrats, they should, when they retake the House, attend to the country’s business and not waste time on politicized and futile impeachments. Those conservatives may well be right; theirs certainly is a reasonable and high-minded position. It also is consistent with the pattern we have seen for many years, where Republicans try to do the right and gentlemanly thing, while Democrats fight viciously for political advantage. This asymmetry has been an unfortunate aspect of our political scene for too long.

    So, should Republicans wield impeachment as a weapon when they next control the House? I am undecided. The answer will be determined by the landscape as it exists two years hence, which at present, we cannot foresee. What we can say for certain is that the Democrats, with their two absurd impeachments of President Trump, have decisively changed how we all must view impeachment, if not forever, certainly for the foreseeable future. In 2023, or whenever Republicans re-take the House, it will very much be on the table.


    Should Republicans Impeach Biden and Harris?
    Posted on February 14, 2021
    by John Hinderaker

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...and-harris.php

    Here are my thoughts and opinions on impeachment.

    First, I doubt very much if Colonial Americans would have ratified a constitution that included the:


    Divine right of kings


    Divine right of kings, in European history, a political doctrine in defense of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and could not therefore be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority such as a parliament. Originating in Europe, the divine-right theory can be traced to the medieval conception of God’s award of temporal power to the political ruler, paralleling the award of spiritual power to the church. By the 16th and 17th centuries, however, the new national monarchs were asserting their authority in matters of both church and state. King James I of England (reigned 1603–25) was the foremost exponent of the divine right of kings, but the doctrine virtually disappeared from English politics after the Glorious Revolution (1688–89). In the late 17th and 18th centuries, kings such as Louis XIV (1643–1715) of France continued to profit from the divine-right theory, even though many of them no longer had any truly religious belief in it. The American Revolution (1775–83), the French Revolution (1789), and the Napoleonic Wars deprived the doctrine of most of its remaining credibility.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/divine-right-of-kings

    Yet The Divine Right Of Federal Officials is exactly what Trump’s defense team, supported by Mitch McConnell and many REPUBLICANS, advocated. In fact, Trump’s acquittal handed more credibility to traitors, crooks, & liars than James Madison and Thomas Jefferson ever put in their blueprint for governing a free people.

    NOTE: Trump would have been acquitted without a false defense:


    They all walked because David Schoen’s defense strategy defended Trump with a questionable interpretation of the Constitution. Yesterday, McConnell jumped in to set Schoen’s flawed strategy in cement. In plain English, no one can ever be impeached for any crime they commit in office after they leave office:

    On the fifth and final day of the impeachment trial, the Republican Senate leader argued in a speech following the 57-43 vote that Congress does not hold the jurisdiction to criminally or civilly prosecute the former president.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...66#post4234366

    Whenever most Americans hear ‘imperial president’ they think of a king or queen rather than an emperor or empress. In that sense an imperial president is a king; so it follows that members of Congress are his dukes and barons. The rest of us are his subjects fit for nothing more than paying taxes to support the ruling class. Any noble opposing the king used to be stripped of his title and wealth, and often separated from his head. An American king cannot go around lopping off heads; hence, a cowardly Congress.

    Assuming the president is a real king his nobility in Congress would be his loyal henchmen carrying out the monarch’s wishes.

    Simply put, federal officials surely enjoy The Divine Right Of Kings if they can never be punished.


    If we agree with the Democrats that it is proper to impeach a former president, House Republicans could consider impeaching Barack Obama. He plainly violated his oath of office and his duties under Article II of the Constitution (specifically, the “Take Care Clause”) when he essentially suspended enforcement of the country’s immigration laws. In my opinion he should have been impeached at the time, and, if the Democrats’ theory is accepted, it will not be too late to impeach him in 2023.

    Next: A word or two about Obama:

    Overriding laws with EOs and mandates showed that Obama’s behavior grew more bizarre in his second term.

    Obama’s desire to be seen as a spiritual leader indicated his love for The Divine Right of Kings; i.e., not subject to earthly authority since he rules by the will of God. Islam’s God or the Christian God, it matters not which one because the king can do no wrong. In addition, all attempts to curtail the king’s power is an affront to God. Does anyone besides me see the shadow of a monarchial theocracy creeping over the Constitution?

    Lest I be accused of spouting a conspiracy theory, let me say that Obama was basically a street-hustling preacher not bright enough to plot and plan a return to The Divine Right of Kings, yet that is where the country went.

    How did Americans go so far down the road to monarchy in spite of the Constitution’s prohibitions?

    For one thing, members of Congress saw that the best way to stay in power was to let the courts, federal bureaucrats, and executive orders do the heavy lifting. The determination to remain in Congress made cowards of them all.

    Today, letting the courts, federal bureaucrats, and executive orders govern morphed into not being able to stop them. Example: All of the constitutional authority in the world cannot stop activist judges from legislating, or from putting the High Court’s stamp of approval on unconstitutional executive orders and dictates issued by federal bureaucrats.

    NOTE: I said “cannot” with one caveat. It is will not rather than cannot.

    Incidentally, executive orders should be called royal edicts.

    "I don't know how Kamala Harris doesn't get impeached if the Republicans take over the House, because she actually bailed out rioters"

    Next: If Kamala Harris cannot be impeached as vice president, she can certainly be impeached for the crimes then-Senator Harris committed. If nothing else, impeaching former Senator Harris, rather than impeaching Vice President Harris will bring the issue to a head. If she is found guilty she cannot hold “. . . any office or public trust under the United States . . . ”.

    Next: A whole lot of trusted conservative Americans have to win elections in 2022.


    “My goal is, in every way possible, to have nominees representing the Republican Party who can win in November,” McConnell told Politico. “Some of them may be people the former president likes. Some of them may not be. The only thing I care about is electability.”


    McConnell threatens to oppose Trump-backed Senate candidates if they are not electable
    Benjamin leo
    17 hours ago

    https://timesnewsexpress.com/news/po...not-electable/


    Should McConnell’s choices win it means business as usual in the swamp —— including not impeaching federal officials establishment Republicans/Democrats need in office to beef up The Divine Right Of Kings.

    Let me close with an observation about state officials going further than their federal government masters:


    Remember, these governors are just getting warmed up. We're only two weeks into this phase. At this pace, if we don't rise up and demand answers,
    there is no limit to what these politicians might do with their divine right of kings. It's appalling that Congress and state legislatures are in recess indefinitely, as random executives – from governors and mayors to county supervisors and sheriffs – rule the nation by fiat. It's time for some real debate and accountability with public input and hearings (remotely, if needed).

    All of us are willing to sacrifice for public safety – a lot. But there are limits, and there are serious questions about whether those sacrifices are even helping, or in some instances, downright hurting. Either way, we will never recover from this devastating blow to liberty.

    As Patrick Henry warned in 1788, "Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt."


    Op-ed March 31, 2020
    Horowitz: Is this quarantine or tyranny
    Daniel Horowitz

    https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horow...ine-or-tyranny

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...79#post3565679
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    340
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 51 Times in 51 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default For 5 years I lived in casinos

    mestastsis

    The spread of cancer cells from the place where they first formed to another part of the body.
    In metastasis, cancer cells break away from the original (primary) tumor, travel through the
    blood or lymphsystem, and form a new tumor in other organs or tissues of the body.




    The person you depend on the most isn't there for you anymore.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,915
    Thanks
    844
    Thanked 379 Times in 339 Posts
    Groans
    50
    Groaned 95 Times in 82 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ParachuteAdams View Post
    mestastsis

    The spread of cancer cells from the place where they first formed to another part of the body.
    In metastasis, cancer cells break away from the original (primary) tumor, travel through the
    blood or lymphsystem, and form a new tumor in other organs or tissues of the body.




    The person you depend on the most isn't there for you anymore.
    To ParachuteAdams:
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    In The Land Of The Free
    Posts
    1,555
    Thanks
    891
    Thanked 856 Times in 567 Posts
    Groans
    80
    Groaned 60 Times in 60 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Counting Chickens (the House) two years early.. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    133
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 49 Times in 35 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    This is a very dirty game that some Republicans want to play. Fortunately, it's only a vocal minority (Paul, Cruz, Graham, etc). The fact that many Republicans who voted to acquit Trump agree that Trump is guilty of all charges should tell you that this is above partisan bickering.

    There's also the fact that seven Republicans voted guilty.
    _______

    Personal Ignore List.

    1. Guille
    Ignored on 2.15.21 for petty personal attacks and for unwarranted vitriol after repeated attempts to establish civil discourse.

    2. Text Drivers are Killers
    Ignored on 2.16.21 for racist haranguing.

    3. Into the Night
    Ignored on 2.16.21 for fallacious use of fallacies, blatant sophistry, dissemination of toxic lies, and general disregard of facts.

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    340
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 51 Times in 51 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default The sidewalk came out perfect!

    maxresdefault.jpg

    I pull up to the truck to ask a quick question about building materials.
    I tell the guy. I'm kind of in a rush. I'm headed to synagogue. I just have
    a quick question. I peak in the back of the truck and they're sitting on
    buckets with a makeshift table. They have a poker game going on. The
    one guy is noshing on cheese doodles and the other guy reaches to his
    side picks up a bottle of bud and takes a swig. I said the hell with it and
    just pulled away.




  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,915
    Thanks
    844
    Thanked 379 Times in 339 Posts
    Groans
    50
    Groaned 95 Times in 82 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by American Man View Post
    This is a very dirty game that some Republicans want to play.
    To American Man: Not so. Reasearch “penumbral reasoning” if you want to know what DEMOCRAT& REPUBLICAN justices have been doing for more than a half century:


    For over 50 years, constitutional scholars, and Supreme Court justices in particular, have used “penumbral reasoning” as one means to explain rulings expanding the Constitution of the United States. Law schools describe it as “reasoning by interpolation.” To put that in graphic terms, if you’re drawing a graph on paper, reasoning by interpolation allows you to extend the line off of the paper. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I don’t think that’s necessary to see that this can lead to a very dark place.

    In legal terms, when a justice says they’re using penumbral reasoning, they’re admitting that the next thing they say is not actually written in the Constitution. They’re using it as an interpretive instrument to claim that if the Founders were alive today, “They would put what I’m about to rule in the Constitution.”

    Penumbras have been debated in legal papers for many years. But in 1965, Justice William O. Douglas used penumbral reasoning in the majority opinion of Griswold v. Connecticut to declare that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution -- even though it’s not written anywhere. He then used this newly discovered “right” to find that a ban on contraceptives was therefore unconstitutional. A right to privacy seems like a logical inclusion in the constitution. But rather than five justices declaring it a right, why didn’t we add it to the Constitution with an amendment? It couldn’t have been that difficult to get ¾ of the population to agree that they wanted privacy. With an amendment, we could have avoided all the resulting controversy.

    NOTE: President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren and William J. Brennan Jr.


    Instead, justices have been exploring the limits of penumbral logic ever since. That’s how they “discovered” that a right to abortion is included in the Constitution. They’ve become the test pilots, taking us for a ride while they “push the envelope” -- only we don’t get a parachute.


    My point. Penumbral reasoning is the federal court's judicial philosophy regardless of which party federal judges and justices no matter what the media tells us. It just happens that penumbral reasoning aligns perfectly with the Democrat Party’s worldview.

    Parenthetically, Democrats did not want to bother the public with constitutional amendments; so they covered penumbral reasoning with this brilliant piece of doublespeak: The Constitution a living, breathing, document.


    To understand it better, let’s take a look at what a penumbra is. The dictionary definition of a penumbra is the lighter area around the edge of a shadow. When a legal scholar uses it, they’re saying that they see something emanating from the shadows of the Constitution -- it’s there, even though it’s not written. It’s a natural outgrowth of, or inherent in, something that is written. Here’s the way I understand it: If you have a few drinks, squint your eyes, and look sideways, you can kinda sorta imagine what the Founders would write, even though they didn’t write it. It’s perfectly straightforward. The justices are saying that they can read the minds of political giants that have been dead for hundreds of years. How humble of them.

    The Supreme Court decided that the Supreme Court can declare that the Constitution means something it doesn’t say -- without concurrence of the citizenry. Isn’t that a bit like a king granting himself unlimited power over the serfs, and then saying it’s legal because the king gave himself the authority to write the rules? What could possibly go wrong?

    Maybe we can understand what could go wrong by looking at the application of penumbral reasoning to other legal venues. How do you think a penumbral argument would go in a civil case? Let me illustrate: You hire a builder to construct a new home for your family. You enter into a contract with the builder to construct a single-family dwelling with three bedrooms. But, by the time the home is completed, you’ve added another baby to the family. You inform the builder that he’s in breach of the contract because you now need a four-bedroom home. You file a lawsuit. In court, you argue that the contract should have evolved with changing circumstances. The requirement for a four-bedroom home was always there -- as a penumbra, emanating from the requirement for a single-family dwelling. How do you think this lawsuit will turn out?

    Penumbral reasoning is absurd for contract law, and it’s also absurd for constitutional law. If the words don’t have concrete meanings, the documents they are written on become meaningless. Just because an argument originated with a scholar doesn’t make it any less asinine. It just proves that Ivy League credentials do not bestow wisdom.

    Let’s look at what this type of interpretation has led to. It started innocuously enough. The justices used it to grant us a constitutional right to privacy. That doesn’t seem like a bad thing. Who could argue with that? However, it did put us on the proverbial “slippery slope.” Now that the Supreme Court has granted itself the authority to “read between the lines” of the Constitution, they’ve started finding other stuff. Now they’ve discovered that we have a constitutional right to contraception, abortion, and same-sex marriage. I’m not arguing that any of these things are good or bad. I’m saying that they should have been debated by the citizenry, not nine Supreme Court justices.

    What about the argument that the Constitution needs to evolve with the changing needs of our society? Of course, it does. But the use of penumbral arguments is an arrogation of power from the people to robed overlords. It’s also a lazy man’s method of achieving constitutional changes without selling them to his fellow citizens.

    The correct way to evolve the Constitution is through the amendment process. Yes, it’s difficult and time consuming -- and that’s a feature, not a bug. By requiring broad buy-in, public debate is driven and consensus is achieved -- or not. With consensus, future controversy is minimized.

    Is it possible that Roe v. Wade was not an example of the Constitution evolving with society, but rather of the Supreme Court dragging society towards their worldview? How different would our debates about abortion be if ¾ of the citizenry had agreed on the legality of the practice in 1973? If you answer, “But we would have never gotten it passed,” then you’ve just made my point.


    February 15, 2021
    A Layman’s Guide to Penumbral Reasoning
    By John Green

    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...reasoning.html
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,915
    Thanks
    844
    Thanked 379 Times in 339 Posts
    Groans
    50
    Groaned 95 Times in 82 Posts

    Default

    delete
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    6,484
    Thanks
    923
    Thanked 2,475 Times in 1,742 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 536 Times in 500 Posts

    Default

    This is one of the stupidest threads I ever read through- so stupid it goes beyond normal stupidity! It's like MEGA-STUPID!

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Geeko Sportivo For This Post:

    no worries (02-16-2021)

  11. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,915
    Thanks
    844
    Thanked 379 Times in 339 Posts
    Groans
    50
    Groaned 95 Times in 82 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    This is one of the stupidest threads I ever read through- so stupid it goes beyond normal stupidity! It's like MEGA-STUPID!
    To Geeko Sportivo: Asshole. You are saying that all of these people are stupid:

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    For over 50 years, constitutional scholars, and Supreme Court justices in particular, have used “penumbral reasoning” as one means to explain rulings expanding the Constitution of the United States.

    XXXXX

    Penumbras have been debated in legal papers for many years.

    Incidentally, I expect this possibility will send you and your kind around the bend:


    Bannon suggested Trump could run for Congress in 2022 and then seek the speaker post, as Republicans are expected to regain the majority.

    "We totally get rid of Nancy Pelosi, and the first act of President Trump as speaker will be to impeach Joe Biden for his illegitimate activities of stealing the presidency," Bannon told the West Roxbury Ward 20 Republican Committee.

    Trump's brand-new path to White House? Become House speaker, impeach Biden
    By Bob Unruh
    Published February 15, 2021 at 1:06pm

    https://www.wnd.com/2021/02/trumps-b...impeach-biden/

    XXXXX


    Steve Bannon Sounds the Alarm, Says President Trump “Will Lead Us In 2024,” May Replace Pelosi and Impeach Biden
    by Collin Rugg
    about 10 hours ago

    https://trendingpolitics.com/steve-b...impeach-biden/

    Not to worry. The American people would consider impeaching Biden cruel and unusual punishment because he is a vegetable. Diminished Capacity would be Biden’s only defense in an impeachment trial. Kicking a turnip when he is down is a trial most Americans would resent.

    On the other hand, the American people would love to see Speaker of the House Donald Trump impeach the trollop:


    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    "I don't know how Kamala Harris doesn't get impeached if the Republicans take over the House, because she actually bailed out rioters"


    Next: If Kamala Harris cannot be impeached as vice president, she can certainly be impeached for the crimes then-Senator Harris committed. If nothing else, impeaching former Senator Harris, rather than impeaching Vice President Harris will bring the issue to a head. If she is found guilty she cannot hold “. . . any office or public trust under the United States . . . ”.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  12. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    1,813
    Thanks
    2,143
    Thanked 518 Times in 379 Posts
    Groans
    184
    Groaned 98 Times in 91 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Should Republicans Impeach Biden and Harris?

    Now that impeachment is just one more card in the political deck, to be played by whichever party controls the House of Representatives, the question naturally arises: what should Republicans do when they retake control of the House, very likely in 2022?

    Lindsay Graham warns that if the Democrats could impeach Donald Trump with the false assertion that he incited violence, a far stronger claim along the same lines can be made against Kamala Harris:


    Breaking911

    SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: "I don't know how Kamala Harris doesn't get impeached if the Republicans take over the House, because she actually bailed out rioters"




    Tweet
    Tom Cotton

    Aug 30, 2020
    Kamala Harris helped violent rioters in Minnesota get out of jail to do more damage.

    Don't believe her when she says she "condemns the violence"—look at her record, not her words.

    Quote Tweet
    Kamala Harris

    Jun 1, 2020
    If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund
    to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.
    Donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund
    Your support will help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.

    Jeff Dunetz argues against retaliatory impeachment, and also says that Harris shouldn’t be impeached for something she did before she was vice-president. That is certainly a plausible position, although interestingly, the Constitution doesn’t say that the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that are the basis for removal from office must have been committed while the subject of the impeachment held his or her current office.

    If we agree with the Democrats that it is proper to impeach a former president, House Republicans could consider impeaching Barack Obama. He plainly violated his oath of office and his duties under Article II of the Constitution (specifically, the “Take Care Clause”) when he essentially suspended enforcement of the country’s immigration laws. In my opinion he should have been impeached at the time, and, if the Democrats’ theory is accepted, it will not be too late to impeach him in 2023.

    More to the point, though, is the fact that Joe Biden has committed the same impeachable offense as Barack Obama. In his first week’s blizzard of executive orders, he, perhaps to an even greater extent than Obama, purported to repeal the immigration laws. I think this was an impeachable offense, not just on the absurd theories argued for by Democrats, but on a sober reading of the impeachment clauses in the Constitution. And of course, by 2023 Biden in all likelihood will have committed many more illegal and unconstitutional acts that could be the basis for impeachment.

    Some respected commentators argue that Republicans should take the high road. Rather than emulating the Democrats, they should, when they retake the House, attend to the country’s business and not waste time on politicized and futile impeachments. Those conservatives may well be right; theirs certainly is a reasonable and high-minded position. It also is consistent with the pattern we have seen for many years, where Republicans try to do the right and gentlemanly thing, while Democrats fight viciously for political advantage. This asymmetry has been an unfortunate aspect of our political scene for too long.

    So, should Republicans wield impeachment as a weapon when they next control the House? I am undecided. The answer will be determined by the landscape as it exists two years hence, which at present, we cannot foresee. What we can say for certain is that the Democrats, with their two absurd impeachments of President Trump, have decisively changed how we all must view impeachment, if not forever, certainly for the foreseeable future. In 2023, or whenever Republicans re-take the House, it will very much be on the table.


    Should Republicans Impeach Biden and Harris?
    Posted on February 14, 2021
    by John Hinderaker

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...and-harris.php

    Here are my thoughts and opinions on impeachment.

    First, I doubt very much if Colonial Americans would have ratified a constitution that included the:


    Divine right of kings


    Divine right of kings, in European history, a political doctrine in defense of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and could not therefore be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority such as a parliament. Originating in Europe, the divine-right theory can be traced to the medieval conception of God’s award of temporal power to the political ruler, paralleling the award of spiritual power to the church. By the 16th and 17th centuries, however, the new national monarchs were asserting their authority in matters of both church and state. King James I of England (reigned 1603–25) was the foremost exponent of the divine right of kings, but the doctrine virtually disappeared from English politics after the Glorious Revolution (1688–89). In the late 17th and 18th centuries, kings such as Louis XIV (1643–1715) of France continued to profit from the divine-right theory, even though many of them no longer had any truly religious belief in it. The American Revolution (1775–83), the French Revolution (1789), and the Napoleonic Wars deprived the doctrine of most of its remaining credibility.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/divine-right-of-kings

    Yet The Divine Right Of Federal Officials is exactly what Trump’s defense team, supported by Mitch McConnell and many REPUBLICANS, advocated. In fact, Trump’s acquittal handed more credibility to traitors, crooks, & liars than James Madison and Thomas Jefferson ever put in their blueprint for governing a free people.

    NOTE: Trump would have been acquitted without a false defense:


    They all walked because David Schoen’s defense strategy defended Trump with a questionable interpretation of the Constitution. Yesterday, McConnell jumped in to set Schoen’s flawed strategy in cement. In plain English, no one can ever be impeached for any crime they commit in office after they leave office:

    On the fifth and final day of the impeachment trial, the Republican Senate leader argued in a speech following the 57-43 vote that Congress does not hold the jurisdiction to criminally or civilly prosecute the former president.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...66#post4234366

    Whenever most Americans hear ‘imperial president’ they think of a king or queen rather than an emperor or empress. In that sense an imperial president is a king; so it follows that members of Congress are his dukes and barons. The rest of us are his subjects fit for nothing more than paying taxes to support the ruling class. Any noble opposing the king used to be stripped of his title and wealth, and often separated from his head. An American king cannot go around lopping off heads; hence, a cowardly Congress.

    Assuming the president is a real king his nobility in Congress would be his loyal henchmen carrying out the monarch’s wishes.

    Simply put, federal officials surely enjoy The Divine Right Of Kings if they can never be punished.


    If we agree with the Democrats that it is proper to impeach a former president, House Republicans could consider impeaching Barack Obama. He plainly violated his oath of office and his duties under Article II of the Constitution (specifically, the “Take Care Clause”) when he essentially suspended enforcement of the country’s immigration laws. In my opinion he should have been impeached at the time, and, if the Democrats’ theory is accepted, it will not be too late to impeach him in 2023.

    Next: A word or two about Obama:

    Overriding laws with EOs and mandates showed that Obama’s behavior grew more bizarre in his second term.

    Obama’s desire to be seen as a spiritual leader indicated his love for The Divine Right of Kings; i.e., not subject to earthly authority since he rules by the will of God. Islam’s God or the Christian God, it matters not which one because the king can do no wrong. In addition, all attempts to curtail the king’s power is an affront to God. Does anyone besides me see the shadow of a monarchial theocracy creeping over the Constitution?

    Lest I be accused of spouting a conspiracy theory, let me say that Obama was basically a street-hustling preacher not bright enough to plot and plan a return to The Divine Right of Kings, yet that is where the country went.

    How did Americans go so far down the road to monarchy in spite of the Constitution’s prohibitions?

    For one thing, members of Congress saw that the best way to stay in power was to let the courts, federal bureaucrats, and executive orders do the heavy lifting. The determination to remain in Congress made cowards of them all.

    Today, letting the courts, federal bureaucrats, and executive orders govern morphed into not being able to stop them. Example: All of the constitutional authority in the world cannot stop activist judges from legislating, or from putting the High Court’s stamp of approval on unconstitutional executive orders and dictates issued by federal bureaucrats.

    NOTE: I said “cannot” with one caveat. It is will not rather than cannot.

    Incidentally, executive orders should be called royal edicts.

    "I don't know how Kamala Harris doesn't get impeached if the Republicans take over the House, because she actually bailed out rioters"

    Next: If Kamala Harris cannot be impeached as vice president, she can certainly be impeached for the crimes then-Senator Harris committed. If nothing else, impeaching former Senator Harris, rather than impeaching Vice President Harris will bring the issue to a head. If she is found guilty she cannot hold “. . . any office or public trust under the United States . . . ”.

    Next: A whole lot of trusted conservative Americans have to win elections in 2022.


    “My goal is, in every way possible, to have nominees representing the Republican Party who can win in November,” McConnell told Politico. “Some of them may be people the former president likes. Some of them may not be. The only thing I care about is electability.”


    McConnell threatens to oppose Trump-backed Senate candidates if they are not electable
    Benjamin leo
    17 hours ago

    https://timesnewsexpress.com/news/po...not-electable/


    Should McConnell’s choices win it means business as usual in the swamp —— including not impeaching federal officials establishment Republicans/Democrats need in office to beef up The Divine Right Of Kings.

    Let me close with an observation about state officials going further than their federal government masters:


    Remember, these governors are just getting warmed up. We're only two weeks into this phase. At this pace, if we don't rise up and demand answers,
    there is no limit to what these politicians might do with their divine right of kings. It's appalling that Congress and state legislatures are in recess indefinitely, as random executives – from governors and mayors to county supervisors and sheriffs – rule the nation by fiat. It's time for some real debate and accountability with public input and hearings (remotely, if needed).

    All of us are willing to sacrifice for public safety – a lot. But there are limits, and there are serious questions about whether those sacrifices are even helping, or in some instances, downright hurting. Either way, we will never recover from this devastating blow to liberty.

    As Patrick Henry warned in 1788, "Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt."


    Op-ed March 31, 2020
    Horowitz: Is this quarantine or tyranny
    Daniel Horowitz

    https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horow...ine-or-tyranny

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...79#post3565679
    Breaking911

    SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: "I don't know how Kamala Harris doesn't get impeached if the Republicans take over the House, because she actually bailed out rioters"

    Leslie is going to have her own problems.

    Graham, a South Carolina Republican who was then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also inquired if Raffensperger could discard all mail-in ballots from counties that had shown higher rates of unmatched signatures, the Republican secretary of state told the Post at the time. Graham has denied the assertions from Raffensperger, who has stood firm on his account.

  13. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,915
    Thanks
    844
    Thanked 379 Times in 339 Posts
    Groans
    50
    Groaned 95 Times in 82 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Trump's brand-new path to White House? Become House speaker, impeach Biden

    Trump should tell McConnell to piss off:


    Mitch McConnell says Trump could play ‘constructive’ role for Republicans
    By Steven Nelson
    February 15, 2021 | 6:34pm

    https://nypost.com/2021/02/15/mcconn...r-republicans/

    Conservative Americans never fell for Trump’s self-proclaimed conservative bona fides. Hooking up with McConnell’s establishment Republicans will put an end to Trump’s political career which is exactly what McConnell is trying to do.


    On the plus side, conservative Americans have a shot at gaining a bunch of seats in both Houses of Congress in 2022, but only if they nominate trusted conservatives. In the past so-called conservatives turned out to be conservatives-in-name-only the minute they dived into the public trough.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...46#post4209646
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  14. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,915
    Thanks
    844
    Thanked 379 Times in 339 Posts
    Groans
    50
    Groaned 95 Times in 82 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Trump should tell McConnell to piss off:
    It took four years and 625 words for Trump to say: “. . . piss off”:


    "The Republican Party can never again be respected or strong with political 'leaders' like Sen. Mitch McConnell at its helm. McConnell's dedication to business as usual, status quo policies, together with his lack of political insight, wisdom, skill, and personality, has rapidly driven him from Majority Leader to Minority Leader, and it will only get worse. The Democrats and Chuck Schumer play McConnell like a fiddle – they've never had it so good – and they want to keep it that way! We know our America First agenda is a winner, not McConnell's Beltway First agenda or Biden's America Last.

    "In 2020, I received the most votes of any sitting President in history, almost 75,000,000. Every incumbent House Republican won for the first time in decades, and we flipped 15 seats, almost costing Nancy Pelosi her job. Republicans won majorities in at least 59 of the 98 partisan legislative chambers, and the Democrats failed to flip a single legislative chamber from red to blue. And in 'Mitch's Senate,' over the last two election cycles, I single-handedly saved at least 12 Senate seats, more than eight in the 2020 cycle alone – and then came the Georgia disaster, where we should have won both U.S. Senate seats, but McConnell matched the Democrat offer of $2,000 stimulus checks with $600. How does that work? It became the Democrats' principal advertisement, and a big winner for them it was. McConnell then put himself, one of the most unpopular politicians in the United States, into the advertisements. Many Republicans in Georgia voted Democrat, or just didn't vote, because of their anguish at their inept Governor, Brian Kemp, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and the Republican Party, for not doing its job on Election Integrity during the 2020 Presidential race.

    "It was a complete election disaster in Georgia, and certain other swing states. McConnell did nothing, and will never do what needs to be done in order to secure a fair and just electoral system into the future. He doesn't have what it takes, never did, and never will.

    "My only regret is that McConnell 'begged' for my strong support and endorsement before the great people of Kentucky in the 2020 election, and I gave it to him. He went from one point down to 20 points up, and won. How quickly he forgets. Without my endorsement, McConnell would have lost, and lost badly. Now, his numbers are lower than ever before, he is destroying the Republican side of the Senate, and in so doing, seriously hurting our Country.

    "Likewise, McConnell has no credibility on China because of his family's substantial Chinese business holdings. He does nothing on this tremendous economic and military threat.

    "Mitch is a dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack, and if Republican Senators are going to stay with him, they will not win again. He will never do what needs to be done, or what is right for our Country. Where necessary and appropriate, I will back primary rivals who espouse Making America Great Again and our policy of America First. We want brilliant, strong, thoughtful, and compassionate leadership.

    "Prior to the pandemic, we produced the greatest economy and jobs numbers in the history of our Country, and likewise, our economic recovery after Covid was the best in the world. We cut taxes and regulations, rebuilt our military, took care of our Vets, became energy independent, built the wall and stopped the massive inflow of illegals into our Country, and so much more. And now, illegals are pouring in, pipelines are being stopped, taxes will be going up, and we will no longer be energy independent.

    "This is a big moment for our country, and we cannot let it pass by using third rate 'leaders' to dictate our future!"


    'Unsmiling political hack': Trump goes nuclear on Mitch McConnell
    By WND Staff
    Published February 16, 2021 at 8:09pm

    https://www.wnd.com/2021/02/unsmilin...tch-mcconnell/
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  15. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    340
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 51 Times in 51 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default I voted for him.


Similar Threads

  1. Democrat operatives are pathological liars - DEMOCRATS ARE BORN LIARS
    By Terri4Trump in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-06-2020, 03:38 PM
  2. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-27-2019, 12:41 PM
  3. Liars and Crooks
    By Canceled2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-24-2013, 02:29 PM
  4. Divine Judgement?
    By Howey in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-11-2013, 04:15 PM
  5. A Divine Message to Midcan
    By jollie in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 03:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •